Labor's choice: slipper or stiletto?

If they elect Kim Beazley, they will be going with the flow of public opinion. Beazley outpolled Mark Latham 39 per cent to 14 per cent.

If they buy the argument being put strongly by the Latham forces for generational change, the Opposition could conceivably have on its hands the challenge of several political lifetimes.

Simon Crean has been forced out of the leadership because caucus members thought he would take the party backwards electorally. Beazley's relatively high personal rating should give him a good deal of pulling power in the caucus ballot.

Voters know Beazley, and they have a lot of residual affection for him, despite his flaws. The main problem with Latham is not that the public is unfamiliar with him - Latham has got himself well enough into the public consciousness; it's that he frightens the hell out of many people. And a lot in caucus feel the same way as the public.

Beazley is the comfortable walking shoe, well worn, serviceable, but perhaps unglamorous and a bit floppy. Latham is the strappy stiletto that attracts attention but is potentially lethal when its wearer hares around, as this one is wont to do.

With the party numbers favouring Beazley but (as of yesterday) not decisively so, this leadership ballot is a day-by-day mystery tour for the caucus.

Leadership challenges sometimes reprise earlier scripts, although each has its own signature. And leaders, when they are forced to confront the certainty of their political demise, react differently.

As ALP Senate chief John Faulkner and former rusted-on Creanite Martin Ferguson were going to Crean's Canberra house on Wednesday night to tell him they were deserting him, they were no doubt too preoccupied to compare themselves with the carriers of a political death message who went to John Howard in 1989.

Howard's leadership colleagues arrived after a dinner at his Parliament House office to tell the then opposition leader his time was up. Unlike Crean, Howard contested the subsequent ballot and lost.

Late in 1991 a ministerial delegation went to prime minister Bob Hawke and urged him to make a dignified exit. He ignored their advice, and was blasted out by Paul Keating in the subsequent caucus vote.

It is salutary to look at how things worked out after these coups.

The removal of Hawke was vindicated by Keating's 1993 election victory. But the ousting of Howard was not justified by later events. Andrew Peacock won the leadership but failed at the 1990 election.

Crean has been forced onto his sword, but caucus members do not have a charismatic leader to embrace, who can be relied on to galvanise popular support as Hawke did in 1983 after he forced his way into the leadership (eventually staring down Bill Hayden).

Rather, this was an exercise born of desperation - the fear that Simon Crean would not just lead Labor to electoral defeat, but quite likely cost a lot of caucus members their seats.

On election night, Labor MPs will be able to judge the merit of the judgement they've made, including whether they chose the best replacement when "best" is very subjective right now.

Beyond their worry about the election, MPs are being influenced by diverse motives as they prepare to cast their votes on Tuesday, and these are not all rational.

Resentment about what has happened to Crean is driving some people to support Latham when they might be inclined, in less charged circumstances, to run a mile from him.

There is a lot of talk about not rewarding treachery. This is an admirable moral sentiment, but it's bizarre hearing it around the caucus. First, all leadership battles involve treachery. Second, caucus members need to do what's best for the party electorally, rather than looking back in anger.

Beazley's challenge is to retain the 34 votes he got in June from the 92 person caucus, and to attract another baker's dozen. The Latham camp claims to have 40 votes; 47 is the magic figure.

The factions are split all over the place.

Beazley has a majority in the Right, although Latham has his base there too, with Laurie Brereton, the old warhorse of the Keating days, a key figure promoting him. Some Lathamites claim their man could get up to half of the Right.

Most of the so-called hard Left, with frontbencher Anthony Albanese at their helm, are backing Beazley. Latham has strong support in the "soft Left", but its leader, Martin Ferguson - one of the door-knockers of the night - is being put down for Beazley.

The Centre, which unanimously supported Crean last time, at this stage seems to be substantially but not uniformly with Latham.

In other words there is a transfer of much of the base Crean-vote to Latham. The question is, how many can Beazley peel off?

As the vote nears, some of the emotion that has engulfed the past few days is likely to calm and more people will be making hard-headed, unsentimental judgements.

One Labor source in the thick of things said yesterday: "This ballot is much less about factional loyalties or mateship - it's about who's best placed to win the election. There's a bit of uncertainty about that.

"The more conservative view is that Beazley is a safe pair of hands. The other side says it's time to take a bit of a punt - under Latham, people will know what Labor stands for.

"In the marginal seats, they (Labor MPs) just want the bloke who will hold their seats. The prospect of losing your seat is a very motivating factor."

Mark Latham yesterday formally declared. Frontbencher Kevin Rudd was still deciding whether to run. His candidacy could complicate the ballot for the main contenders if it's close, although he doesn't have sizeable numbers himself.

It's interesting that in the poll, Rudd (on 12 per cent) ranks only a couple of points behind Latham as preferred Labor leader. To the extent that second rankers are on the public's radar, this is encouraging for Rudd in the longer term.

Mindful that his public campaign was counterproductive in the June challenge, Beazley has been keeping quiet this time.

He is sending the message to caucus members that, with an election so close, caution is needed. As he canvassed colleagues yesterday, before playing proud father at his daughter's engagement party, his pitch was that this is no time for experimentation.

Beazley is offering no deals, say his supporters. Latham would be able, if he wished, to stay on the front bench, but it now seems probable he'd lose treasury. Beazley is willing to have Crean on his front bench, if Crean wanted that. Crean, obviously shattered and in shock, told the national executive on Friday he wanted time to think through his options.

The Latham camp is flying the flag of generational change (although it might note that the Sunday Age poll found Beazley had strong support among younger voters).

Generational change is an echo of the "age wars" debate that is going on all over the place - including in analyses of society ("the wealthy baby boomers are keeping generation X poor"), and in parts of the corporate world ("the oldies are stopping the bright young things getting promotions").

It's a question of balance. A new and youthful leader can grab the electorate's attention and rake in the support. Gough Whitlam, taking over after Arthur Calwell, was seen as such a leader in the mid-1960s (when 50 was regarded as young for politicians).

But generational change is not an automatic political elixir, as the Democrats found to their cost when they installed Natasha Stott Despoja. The real question is whether the leader is in touch with the issues exercising the voters, who of course span the generations.

Today's poll reinforces the message that health tops the list of issues that people say will affect their vote (Medicare 26 per cent; education 16 per cent). As well, the uncertain times mean Labor needs a leader who can at least neutralise the national security and foreign policy issues.

Latham and Beazley could each make a fist of the domestic agenda (although Latham has more baggage). Beazley, however, has the advantage on security and foreign affairs (if Latham became leader there would be a sharp intake of breath at the US embassy).

But any available Labor leader has his work cut out against Howard, a point reinforced by today's poll, which has Howard on 43 per cent as preferred PM, Beazley at 14 per cent, and Latham on 5 per cent.

Many voters (in Victoria as well as NSW) still think Labor should be drafting Bob Carr (48 per cent). It's very flattering for the NSW premier, but he's not that silly.

As he said on Friday of the condition of federal Labor, "You'd probably have to go back to the sad, languishing days of Arthur Augustus Calwell's leadership in the 1960s to have anything like this."